College of Education
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Assessors Anonymous
Handbook for
2009 Focused Visit
A Local Guide to Continuous Program Improvement
(and Accreditation Reports)
Quick Time™a nd a
dec ompr esso r
ar e nee ded to see this pictur e.
Quick Time™a nd a
dec ompr esso r
ar e nee ded to see this pictur e.
Quick Time™a nd a
dec ompr esso r
ar e nee ded to see this pictur e.
Quick Time™a nd a
dec ompr esso r
ar e nee ded to see this pictur e.
Quick Time™a nd a
dec ompr esso r
ar e nee ded to see this pictur e.
Qui ckTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see thi s pi cture.
Oh, sorry, did you say rubric?
Fall 2008
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Table of Contents: The AAAAA List
This Guide is designed to assist COE departments and programs in putting together
assessment plans and accreditation reports. We hope other units find it useful, as well.
FIVE STEP PLAN
Adapted from a presentation by Douglas Walcerz and Eric Gibbs, True Outcomes, May 2008, UHM
1. ACCOUNT (page 3)
Anchor your program (provide your context) in COE. (What is it all about, Alfie?)
2. ALIGN (5)
Agree on what you are trying to accomplish. (Yes, this does mean your faculty.)
3. ASSESS (7)
Accumulate evidence. (Use technology to avoid perishing in piles of paper.)
4. ANALYZE (10)
Aggregate; disaggregate. (And aggravate just about everyone in the process.)
5. ACT (11)
Apply what you find to help students learn better. (Worth it.)
Appendix A
Template Workbook (12)
Appendix B
COE Program Examples (16)
Oh, yes . . . NCATE Focused Visit in Fall 2009
2
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Step 1. ACCOUNT
Anchor your program (provide your context) in COE
Describing your program comes first, including the usual suspects—who, what, when, where,
why, how. Set the context for your program, students, faculty, and program standards or
outcomes as an essential part of the College of Education. Remember to link what your
program does to the COE vision, mission, and conceptual framework, shown here.
College of Education
Motto: Preparing educators to contribute to a just and democratic society
Vision: The COE consists of educators who provide innovative and cutting-edge research and
teaching in an effort to further the field of education and prepare educators to contribute to a just
and democratic society.
Mission: The mission of the College is to work as a diverse and democratic community to:
• prepare new educators and provide ongoing professional development in education
(teaching),
• increase the knowledge base in education and related fields through the
production and application of research related to teaching, learning, and assessment (research),
and
• serve as partners and leaders for excellence in education (service).
Philosophy, Purposes, and Goal: The College is committed to the fundamental goal of
employing and preparing education professionals who are knowledgeable, effective, and caring.
These individuals demonstrate these core values through their knowledge, skills, and
dispositions.
COE programs that submit program reports (e.g., Special Education, Secondary Mathematics,
Educational Technology) to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
(NCATE) Specialty Professional Associations (SPAs) for review must provide the following
information in narrative form. Other programs can use these topics as a guide.
Template 1. Program Context (All programs should complete #3 - #8)
1. Description of any state of institutional policies that may influence the application of program
standards.
2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the
number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student
teaching or internships.
3. Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including
required GPAs and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the
program.
4. Description of the relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework.
5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of program assessments and the
relationship of the program’s assessments to the unit’s assessment system.
6. Program of Study Sheet (outline of courses and experiences required to complete program).
7. Candidate and Completer Chart (provide three years of data, beginning with most recent).
8. Faculty Information (COE will collect and make this available to you electronically).
3
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 1a: Program of Study
Courses and Other Requirements
Credits
Template 1b: Candidate and Completer Chart
Program Name
Academic Year
(Provide for last 3 years)
Number of candidates enrolled in
the program
Number of program completers
2007-2008
2006-2007
2005-2006
The Unit (COE)
QuickTi me™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see thi s pi ctur e.
Assessment System
Our assessment system calls for each program to specify requirements at four transition points
(entry, during program, completion, and follow-up) Requirements must align with the COE
Conceptual Framework that calls for helping our students become knowledgeable, effective,
and caring education professionals. Our conceptual framework matches the NCATE
requirements to demonstrate evidence of students’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions. See the
next section (Step 2: Align) for more information.
Unit (COE) Assessment System
Program Requirements (Use specific, descriptive titles)
Knowledgeable, Effective, Caring
PROGRAMS
Entry
During Program
EDCS
EDEA
EDEF
EDEP
ETEC
ITE Elementary
ITE Secondary
ITE MEdT
KRS
SPED
4
Completion
Follow-up
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Step 2. ALIGN
Agree on what you are trying to accomplish
The first important alignment for COE programs is identifying requirements for all students at
selected transition points in their program of study. The four transition points we use as a unit
(college) are:
1. Entry (admission criteria)
2. During program (important assignments/projects during the program)
3. Completion (work required by the end of the program)
4. Follow-up (licensing exams; surveys of graduates, mentors, employers)
COE uses a grid to show program requirements at the four transition points (template 2) aligned
with the conceptual framework of helping our students become knowledgeable, effective, and
caring professionals. Our framework aligns precisely with the NCATE requirement to show
evidence of our students’ knowledge, skills and dispositions.
Template 2: Show Requirements at Transition Points (use specific, descriptive titles)
Entry
During Program
Completion
Follow-up
Your Program(s)
Show separately for
programs that have
different assessments
The entry transition point consists of admissions criteria, such as applications, GPA, and
interviews. The during program and completion transition points should include six to eight (not
more than six to eight total) direct assessments of student work (e.g., projects, papers,
presentations) that students complete to move from one program phase to the next. Follow-up
consists of state licensing requirements, where applicable, and surveys of graduates,
employers, and others who can provide program feedback.
As noted, the transition points should be aligned with the conceptual framework of helping
students become knowledgeable, effective, and caring professionals, thereby demonstrating
their knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Step 3 provides more information on selecting and
writing assessments of student work.
In addition to specifying requirements at transition points, programs should identify their
important outcomes or standards (i.e., professional, national, state), and show how they link
with the program of study (courses and other requirements). Outcomes (often called student
learner outcomes or SLOs) are what we want students to know, be able to do, and care about.
Accrediting bodies often call these outcomes or standards, but terms such as objectives, goals,
benchmarks, and performance indicators also are used in various contexts. Some accrediting
bodies (e.g., NCATE SPAs) specify the standards and outcomes that programs must meet.
Don’t get sidetracked by terminology. Focus on what you want your students to learn and do.
For COE, we must show links to the conceptual framework/KSD and any other national or state
standards that apply to our programs (template 3).
5
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 3: Align Standards/Outcomes, Conceptual Framework, and Program of Study
Program Standards/Outcomes
What we want students to know, do,
and care about
Other
applicable
professional
standards
CFW
&
KSD
Course
#
Course
#
Course
#
Other
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
You many want to use a simple check () to show the major emphases in your curriculum in
Template 3. The Secondary Education Program uses a more detailed system to provide further
information about various courses:
I
D
A
P
Introduce
Demonstrate
Apply to Practice
Portfolio Artifact
Template 3, which is a curriculum map or matrix, can help reveal gaps or overemphasis in
various areas. Faculty members need time to work together to agree on the basic “must have”
requirements for each course, while still leaving room for interests, talents, and creativity that
individual faculty members bring to teaching and learning experiences. Think of the course
must-have requirements as minimum qualifications for the course. The individuality that each
instructor brings makes up the desirable qualifications. Good courses need both.
Some accrediting bodies, such as the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
require programs to show student learner outcomes in course syllabi. Faculty members should
ensure that these outcomes are genuine and doable for themselves and their students. No one
needs any more jargon these days.
Transformative; seamless; developmental; capstone; paradigm shift . . . Anyone? Anyone?
6
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Step 3. ASSESS
Accumulate evidence
Next, faculty members must decide how to determine whether students really are learning what
they think and hope students are learning. COE programs find that six to eight key assessments
(e.g., papers, projects, assignments, exams, internship evaluations) provide the evidence they
seek. Practical advice: Begin with assignments that students already complete as part of the
program. Using assignments that are embedded in courses makes sense. Instructors or
advisors who teach the courses or chair papers/projects can conduct the assessments, or
programs might want to assign different or multiple assessors for students’ work. NCATE also
requires COE to describe the processes we have adopted to ensure that assessment
procedures are fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias (template 6). The assessments you
select to showcase your program (template 4) also go into the during program and completion
transition points in Step 2 (template 2).
Template 4: List of 6-8 Key Program Assessments to demonstrate that students are
knowledgeable, effective, and caring education professionals
Assessment
Type or form of
assessment
When assessment is
administered
Who assesses the
work
1
2
3
4
5
6
Once you select your assessments, another grid can help show whether all of your outcomes or
standards are examined adequately in you plan (template 5).
Template 5: Relation of Program Standards/Outcomes (template 3) to the 6-8 Key
Program Assessments (template 4)
Program Standards/Outcomes
What we want students to know, do,
and care about
Assessment
1
Assessment
2
1
2
3
4
5
7
Assessment
3
Assessment
4
Assessment
5
Assessment
6
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 6: Processes to ensure that program assessment procedures are fair, accurate,
consistent, and free of bias
What processes has the program used to ensure that assessment procedures are fair,
accurate, consistent, and free of bias? (What, when, how, and with what results?)
Further describing each assessment in detail is important. The College of Education uses the
following format, (template 7) in accordance with NCATE SPA program review:
Template 7. Format for Writing Performance Assessments (do for EACH assessment)
Assessment 1: Title
1. Brief description of the assessment and its use in the program
2. Description of how the assessment aligns with specific standards
3. Brief analysis of data findings
4. Interpretation of how data provide evidence for meeting standards
5. Attachment of assessment documentation

Title

Type of assessment

When administered

Description

Standards

Instructions to students

Scoring guide (rubric, checklist, other criteria—see template 7a)

Student assessment data (tables, charts, graphs—see template 7b)
8
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Scoring guides consist of rubrics, checklists, or other criteria provided to (and sometimes codeveloped with) students. Many programs in COE develop analytic rubrics (those that identify
and score multiple components in a rubric, rather than providing only one holistic score). COE
programs generally use three score points (unacceptable, acceptable, target) to match NCATE
language. Instructors score each component of the rubric and provide an overall score.
Template 7a. Scoring Guide Format
Assessment component
Unacceptable
1
Criteria . . .
2
Criteria . . .
3
Criteria . . .
Acceptable
Target
Criteria . . .
Criteria . . .
A
T
U
Criteria . . .
Criteria . . .
A
T
U
Criteria . . .
Criteria . . .
A
T
U
Overall score:
U
A
Other ideas for scoring:
0—1—2
Does not meet expectations—Meets expectations—Exceeds expectations
Unsatisfactory—Satisfactory—Exemplary
Or, in the words of a group of middle school students:
Clueless—Getting it—Got it!
9
T
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Step 4. ANALYZE
Aggregate, disaggregate—and aggravate just about everyone in the process
The need to collect and score six to eight assessments for many students across many
programs (often within the same department) quickly raises the need for dependable technology
tools to help manage the work. The College of Education is collaborating with other
colleges and schools across campus to select a common set of technology tools that we
all can use to collect and score student work, and to summarize the resulting data to suit
our needs. COE has offered to “test drive” the technology tools that seem best suited to our
campus as soon as they are available. COE plans to load each department’s assessments and
scoring guides centrally from the Dean’s office. Students submit required work, and faculty
members score the work with a radio-button or pull-down menu, similar to putting grades into
Banner. The technology we are considering will allow each department to run its own reports by
selecting descriptors of interest (e.g., assessment scores for all science methods courses taught
online versus those taught on campus) from pull-down menus.
Programs need to report certain quantitative data for accreditation. For example, what number
and percentage of students in various teacher education majors passed the required Praxis
exams that HTSB requires for licensing? What number and percentage of students scored at
the unacceptable, acceptable, and target levels on the six to eight key assessments selected by
their programs? Data for program reports can be presented as shown in template 7b.
Template 7b. Student Assessment Data Format (make a table for each year—try to show
3 years of data)
Assessment component
Unacceptable
Number
%
Acceptable
N
%
Target
N
%
1
2
3
Overall score:
Departments and programs will need a variety of tables to aggregate and disaggregate data for
different purposes. Data should be reported separately for different groups of students
(Secondary BEd vs. post-bac) and various methods of program delivery (e.g., on-campus, offcampus, hybrid, online). For example, the Elementary and Early Childhood Education (EECE)
program reports data separately for the Manoa and American Samoa programs. In the future
reports, EECE also will report data separately for statewide distance education programs.
For NCATE purposes, programs should construct data tables to show scores for each
component of an analytic rubric. Rather than showing multiple years of data in one table, a
separate table for each year can be used to show results for all parts of the rubric. Simple-touse, dependable technology tools are essential to preserve sanity during the aggregation and
disaggregation process, and we are working on those!
10
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Step 5. ACT
Apply what you find to help students learn better
Step 5 means using data to make programs better. Faculty members may be surprised by a
particular result. The EECE program implemented an assessment to help determine the effects
teacher candidates have on K-6 student learning. EECE learned that although the teacher
candidates were quite skilled in reflecting on their own teaching performance, they were less
able to plan next steps based on children’s performance. After recognizing this “self-reflection
disorder,” the EECE faculty changed the program to ensure that teacher candidates have more
opportunities to hone their assessment skills related to what children are learning.
COE programs that go through NCATE SPA review conclude with the following:
SECTION V—USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE
CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
Evidence must be presented in this section that assessment results have been analyzed and have been
or will be used to improve candidate performance and strengthen the program. This description should
not link improvements to individual assessments but, rather, it should summarize principal findings from
the evidence, the faculty’s interpretation of those findings, and changes made in (or planned for) the
program as a result. Describe the steps program faculty has taken to use information from assessments
for improvement of both candidate performance and the program. This information should be organized
around (1) content knowledge, (2) professional and pedagogical knowledge, skill, and dispositions, and
(3) student learning. (Note: Knowledgeable, Effective, and Caring for COE)
Departments and programs can use the following guidelines to close the loop with regard to
program improvement (template 9).
Template 8: Use of assessment results to improve candidate and program performance
1. Knowledgeable (knowledge)—What we want candidates to know (knowledge of discipline)



Principal findings and interpretation
Steps for improving candidate performance
Steps for improving program performance
2. Effective (skills)—What we want candidates to be able to do (theory  practice link;
pedagogical content knowledge & skills; pedagogical & professional knowledge & skills)



Principal findings and interpretation
Steps for improving candidate performance
Steps for improving program performance
3. Caring (dispositions)—What we want candidates to care about (professional dispositions to
help all students learn; verbal & nonverbal behaviors) *



Principal findings and interpretation
Steps for improving candidate performance
Steps for improving program performance
* At a minimum, fairness and a belief that all students can learn
11
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
APPENDIX A
Template Workbook
(Available Electronically)
To be accompanied by making-sense-of-it-all narratives
Template 1. Program Context (All programs should complete #3 - #8)
1. Description of any state of institutional policies that may influence the application of
program standards.
2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the
number of hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student
teaching or internships.
3. Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including
required GPAs and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the
program.
4. Description of the relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework.
5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of program assessments and the
relationship of the program’s assessments to the unit’s assessment system.
6. Program of Study Sheet (outline of courses and experiences required to complete
program).
7. Candidate and Completer Chart (provide three years of data, beginning with most recent).
8. Faculty Information (COE will collect and make this available to you electronically).
Template 1a: Program of Study
Courses and Other Requirements
Credits
Template 1b: Candidate and Completer Chart
Program Name
Academic Year
(Provide for last 3 years)
Number of candidates enrolled in
the program
2007-2008
2006-2007
2005-2006
12
Number of program completers
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 2: Show Requirements at Transition Points (use specific, descriptive titles)
Entry
During Program
Completion
Follow-up
Your Program(s)
Show separately for
programs that have
different assessments
Template 3: Align Standards/Outcomes, Conceptual Framework, and Program of Study
Program Standards/Outcomes
What we want students to know, do,
and care about
Other
applicable
professional
standards
CFW
&
KSD
Course #
Course #
Course #
Course #
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Template 4: List of 6-8 Key Program Assessments to demonstrate that students are
knowledgeable, effective, and caring
Assessment
Type or form of
assessment
1
2
3
4
5
6
13
When assessment is
administered
Who assesses the
work
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 5: Relation of Program Standards/Outcomes (template 3) to the 6-8 Key
Program Assessments (template 4)
Program Standards/Outcomes
What we want students to know, do,
and care about
Assessment
1
Assessment
2
Assessment
3
Assessment
4
Assessment
5
Assessment
6
1
2
3
4
5
Template 6: Processes to ensure that program assessment procedures are fair, accurate,
consistent, and free of bias
What processes has the program used to ensure that assessment procedures are fair,
accurate, consistent, and free of bias? (What, when, how, and with what results?)
Template 7. Format for Writing Performance Assessments (do for EACH assessment)
Assessment 1: Title
1. Brief description of the assessment and its use in the program
2. Description of how the assessment aligns with specific standards
3. Brief analysis of data findings
4. Interpretation of how data provide evidence for meeting standards
5. Attachment of assessment documentation

Title

Type of assessment

When administered

Description

Standards

Instructions to students

Scoring guide (rubric, checklist, other criteria—see template 7a)

Student assessment data (tables, charts, graphs—see template 7b)
14
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 7a. Scoring Guide Format (do for EACH assessment)
Assessment component
Unacceptable
1
Criteria . . .
2
Criteria . . .
3
Criteria . . .
Acceptable
Criteria . . .
Criteria . . .
U
A
Criteria . . .
T
Criteria . . .
U
A
Criteria . . .
T
Criteria . . .
U
Overall score:
Target
A
U
T
A
T
Template 7b. Student Assessment Data Format (make a table for each year—try to show
3 years of data)
Year: 2007-08
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Target
Assessment component
Number
%
N
%
N
%
1
2
3
Overall score:
Year: 2006-07
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Target
Assessment component
Number
%
N
%
N
%
1
2
3
Overall score:
Year: 2005-06
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Target
Assessment component
Number
%
1
2
3
Overall score:
15
N
%
N
%
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 8: Use of assessment results to improve candidate and program performance
1. Knowledgeable (knowledge)—What we want candidates to know (knowledge of discipline)

Principal findings and interpretation

Steps for improving candidate performance

Steps for improving program performance
2. Effective (skills)—What we want candidates to be able to do (theory  practice link;
pedagogical content knowledge & skills; pedagogical & professional knowledge & skills)

Principal findings and interpretation

Steps for improving candidate performance

Steps for improving program performance
3. Caring (dispositions)—What we want candidates to care about (professional dispositions to
help all students learn; verbal & nonverbal behaviors) *

Principal findings and interpretation

Steps for improving candidate performance

Steps for improving program performance
* At a minimum, fairness and a belief that all students can learn
Continuous program improvement
Good accreditation reports, too!
16
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
ADDITIONAL UNIT QUESTIONS FOR STANDARD 2
STANDARD 2. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant
qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and
improve the unit and its programs. [Note: Include programs for teachers, including graduate
programs for licensed teachers, and other school professionals, noting differences when
appropriate.]
2a. Assessment System
1. How is the unit assessment system evaluated and continuously improved? Who is involved
and how?
2. Please complete the following table (Table 6) to indicate the key assessments used by the
unit and its programs to monitor candidate performance at transition points such as those
listed in Table 6?
Table 6
Unit Assessment System: Transition Point Assessments
(We will use Template 2 on page 13 in this handbook)
Template 2: Show Requirements at Transition Points (use specific, descriptive titles)
Entry
During Program
Completion
Follow-up
Your Program(s)
Show separately for
programs that have
different assessments
3. How does the unit ensure that the assessment system collects information on candidate
proficiencies outlined in the unit's conceptual framework, state standards, and professional
standards?
4. How does the unit ensure its assessment procedures are fair, accurate, consistent, and free
of bias? (We will use Template 6 on page 14 of this handbook.)
5. What assessments and evaluations are used to manage and improve the operations and
programs of the unit?
6. (Optional) One or more tables and links to key exhibits related to the unit assessment
system could be attached here. Data in tables should be discussed in the appropriate
prompt of 2a. (Links with descriptions must be typed into a Word document that can be
uploaded here. The number of attached exhibits should be limited in number; BOE members
should access most of the exhibits in the unit's electronic exhibit room.)
17
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
1. What are the processes and timelines used by the unit to collect, compile, aggregate,
summarize, and analyze data on candidate performance, unit operations, and program
quality?






How are the data collected?
How often are the data summarized and analyzed?
Whose responsibility is it to summarize and analyze the data? (Dean, assistant dean,
data coordinator, etc.)
In what formats are the data summarized and analyzed? (Reports, tables, charts,
graphs, etc.)
What information technologies are used to maintain the unit's assessment system?
2. How does the unit maintain records of formal candidate complaints and their resolutions?
3. (Optional) One or more tables and links to key exhibits related to the data collection,
analysis, and evaluation could be attached here. Data in tables should be discussed in the
appropriate prompt of 2b. (Links with descriptions must be typed into a Word document that
can be uploaded here.)
2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement
1. What are assessment data indicating about candidate performance on the main campus, at
off-campus sites, and in distance learning programs?
2. How are data regularly used by candidates and faculty to improve their performance?
3. How are data used to discuss or initiate program or unit changes on a regular basis?
4. What data-driven changes have occurred over the past three years?
5. How are assessment data shared with candidates, faculty, and other stakeholders?
6. (Optional) One or more tables and links to key exhibits related to the use of data for program
improvement could be attached here. Data in tables should be discussed in the appropriate
prompt of 2c. (Links with descriptions must be typed into a Word document that can be
uploaded here. The number of attached exhibits should be limited in number; BOE members
should access most of the exhibits in the unit's electronic exhibit room.)
Optional
1. What does your unit do particularly well related to Standard 2?
2. What research related to Standard 2 is being conducted by the unit?
18
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
COE Program Examples
Elementary and Early Childhood Education Program
Template 1. Program Context
1. Description of any state or institutional policies that may influence the application of SPA standards.
The State of Hawai‘i Teacher Standards Board (HTSB) developed the Teacher Performance and
Licensing Standards, referred to in this document as the Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS), to set
standards for Hawai‘i’s public school teachers. The standards are aligned with those of NCATE, the
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), and the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). The requirements of the Hawai‘i Teacher Standards Board
align fully with the requirements of the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI) in the
application of SPA standards. Teacher candidates must demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and
dispositions as knowledgeable, effective, and caring teachers to meet each of the ACEI and Hawai‘i
Teacher Standards. The EECE program illustrates the relationship between the ACEI standards and the
HTS (in italics) as follows:
Elementary and Early Childhood Education (EECE) Program
Demonstrating the Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions of
Knowledgeable, Effective, and Caring Teachers
Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI)
I. Development, Learning, and Motivation
Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)
1. Focuses on the Learner
2. Creates and Maintains a Safe and Positive Learning Environment
4. Fosters Effective Communication in the Learning Environment
Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI)
II. Curriculum
Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)
5. Demonstrates Knowledge of Content
Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI)
III. Instruction
Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)
3. Adapts to the Learner
6. Designs and Provides Meaningful Learning Experiences
7. Uses Active Student Learning Strategies
Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI)
IV. Assessment
Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)
8. Uses Assessment Strategies
Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI)
V. Professionalism
Hawai‘i Teacher Standards (HTS)
9. Demonstrates Professionalism
10. Fosters Parent and School Community Relationships
19
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
2. Description of the field and clinical experiences required for the program, including the number of
hours for early field experiences and the number of hours/weeks for student teaching or internships.
Teacher candidates participate in three semesters of structured field experience (two days per week) and
one semester of student teaching (five days per week) for a combined experience of more than 1200
hours in K-6 partner school classrooms. Candidates participate in field experiences in lower and upper
elementary grades in diverse partner schools selected for each cohort group.
Settings:
Partner schools are selected through the collaborative efforts of the EECE placement coordinator, faculty
cohort coordinators, DOE complex area superintendents, principals, and K-6 mentor teachers. The EECE
placement coordinator ensures that candidates have access to diverse K-6 settings that vary in terms of
children’s socioeconomic level, culture, race/ethnicity, academic performance, and community (e.g.,
students from military families stationed in Hawai‘i).
Experiences:
Expectations for field experience are described fully in the EECE Program Handbook and in the ITE 317
and 390 course syllabi provided on the EECE website at
www.hawaii.edu/coe/departments/ite/prog_bed_elem.html. To illustrate, expectations for field experience
in semester 1 are summarized as follows. Candidates will:
Overall goal—Build positive relationships with their K-6 students and mentor teachers, learn about the
children in their classrooms, and help create a safe and engaging learning environment. Teach at least
two lessons without assistance by the end of the semester.
1. Demonstrate professionalism by being on time, staying the entire day, assisting with mentor teacher’s
schedule (e.g., recess duty), being well prepared for school, providing written lesson plans in
advance, and maintaining confidentiality related to students and colleagues.
2. Attend professional meetings (faculty meetings, professional development seminars, parent and/or
student conferences, IEP meetings) within field experience days as specified by mentor teachers.
Attend all field experience seminars with cohort.
3. Build positive relationships with mentor teachers, K-6 students, peers, school staff, and
parents/caregivers.
4. Take initiative to assist mentor teachers (e.g., work with individuals and small groups, read a story,
help students with self-assessment, prepare lesson materials).
5. Participate in and take increasing responsibility for leading routines, business, other activities, and
transitions.
6. Take responsibility for ongoing communication with mentor teachers and UHM supervisors, as
specified for the semester (e.g., conferences, journals, logs).
7. Observe and reflect on classroom management, planning, teaching, assessment, and other
professional practices, in relation to COE framework.
8. Observe and reflect on K-6 students’ interactions in relation to the Hawai‘i DOE General Learner
Outcomes (GLOs) and Hawai‘i DOE Content and Performance Standards III (http://doe.k12.hi.us/).
9. Teach and reflect on lessons required in methods courses and as specified by mentor teachers and
UHM field supervisors. Integrate technology as appropriate.
10. Interact and meet with parents and caregivers whenever possible.
11. Prepare self-assessment evidence for mid-semester and end-of-semester evaluation, and set up
conferences with mentor teacher.
12. Begin building professional portfolio to provide evidence of meeting Hawai‘i Teacher Standards
throughout the semester, including evidence of student learning (student work, pictures, movies,
other electronic work).
20
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Candidates assume increasing responsibility over the course of the four-semester program, leading to a
three-week solo teaching period during student teaching.
Duration of experiences:
Semester 1
15 weeks
2 days/week
7 hours/day
210 hours
Semester 2
15 weeks
2 days/week
7 hours/day
210 hours
Semester 3
15 weeks
2 days/week
7 hours/day
210 hours
Semester 4
15 weeks
5 days/week
8 hours/day
600 hours
Criteria for selecting sites:
 Partnership school commits to at least two years of service. During semesters 1, 2, and 3, candidates
spend 2 days/week working in the field. During semester 4 (student teaching) candidates spend 5
days/week working in the field.
 Partnership school commits to providing at least four mentors each semester.
 Partnership school commits to providing teacher candidates with opportunities to practice teaching
through implementing lessons developed through candidate course work and in conjunction with
mentor teachers.
Partnerships are initiated upon recommendation from the DOE complex area superintendents (CAS). The
CAS provides a list of recommended schools to the EECE placement coordinator and facilitates contacts
with principals. The placement coordinator then facilitates meetings between principals and EECE cohort
coordinators.
Criteria for selecting and training mentor teachers:
Mentor teachers commit to providing candidates with feedback and periodic formal assessments during
mid-semester and end-of-semester evaluation conferences. The EECE placement coordinator works with
principals to secure agreements to host EECE candidates. The EECE placement coordinator, in turn
provides the list of available schools to cohort coordinators. Cohort coordinators meet with mentor
teachers to discuss participation. Mentors must be tenured teachers who agree to share their practice
and classroom with teacher candidates, work and talk with them to provide guidance and the benefit of
their experience, and allow candidates to gradually increase their teaching participation in a safe
environment. Mentor teachers are trained through bi-annual on-campus sessions and through ongoing
small group and individual meetings arranged by cohort coordinators.
Criteria for selecting and training faculty supervisors:
Faculty field supervisors in the EECE program are full- and part-time faculty members, in both tenuretrack and limited-term appointments. All are required to have had experience teaching in K-6 classrooms
and working with pre-service teachers. Faculty supervisors are trained through pre-semester workshops,
faculty meetings, and regular meetings with cohort coordinators.
3. Description of the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program, including required
GPAs and minimum grade requirements for the content courses accepted by the program.
The Elementary and Early Childhood Education program qualifies graduates to teach in elementary
schools in grades K–6. Requirements include completion of the General Education Core specified for
education majors, elementary emphasis and methods courses in elementary education, and student
teaching, for a minimum of 124 credit hours. Upon admission, students are assigned to cohort groups and
enroll in a set sequence of courses over four semesters.
Admission Criteria
 A minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.75 from all post-secondary institutions attended.
 A minimal composite score of 516 in the reading, writing, and mathematics subtests of the PreProfessional Skills Test (PPST) or Computerized Pre-Professional Skills Test (C-PPST) of the
PRAXIS series with a minimum score of 170 in each subtest.
 A minimum of 40 documented hours of current (within the past five years) group leadership
involvement with elementary-aged children. Such field experience(s) may be completed on either a
paid or voluntary basis. It is highly recommended that the field experience(s) span a period of at least
two semesters.
21
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]


8/11/08
Oral and non-verbal communicative competence demonstrated through the successful completion of
a personal admissions interview. The purpose of the interview is to assess fluency and intelligibility of
oral communication, interest in teaching, student motivation, and suitability to the profession.
Completion of a small group interview with the faculty of the Elementary and Early Childhood
Education Program (and faculty of the Special Education Department for candidates in dual
preparation).
Retention Criteria
 Minimum GPA of 2.75.
 Grades of C or better in all program courses (a grade of C- requires repeating the course to remain in
the program).
 Successful completion of field experience, indicated by scores of Acceptable or Target on all Hawai‘i
Teacher Performance Standards and EECE Professional Dispositions for the semester’s work, or
successful completion of a formal Plan of Assistance for Improvement, specified through collaboration
of UHM faculty, mentor teachers, and teacher candidate.
Program Exit Criteria
 Minimum GPA of 2.75.
 Successful completion of student teaching, indicated by scores of Acceptable or Target on all Hawai‘i
Teacher Performance Standards and EECE Professional Dispositions, or successful completion of a
formal Plan of Assistance for Improvement, specified through collaboration of faculty, mentor
teachers, and teacher candidate.
4. Description of the relationship of the program to the unit’s conceptual framework.
The conceptual framework of the unit states that the College of Education consists of educators who
provide innovative and cutting-edge research and teaching in an effort to further the field of education and
prepare educators to contribute to a just and democratic society. The mission is to work as a diverse and
democratic community to prepare new educators and provide ongoing professional development in
education; increase the knowledge base in education and related fields through the production and
application of research related to teaching, learning, and assessment; and serve as partners and leaders
for excellence in education. The philosophy states that the COE is committed to preparing education
professionals who are knowledgeable, effective, and caring, and who demonstrate those core values
through their (k)nowledge, (s)kills, and (d)ispositions in ways specified in depth in the conceptual
framework.
The EECE program is fully aligned with the COE conceptual framework. EECE faculty representatives
participated fully in the revision and updating of the COE conceptual framework. To reflect and build upon
the COE conceptual framework, the EECE faculty members added the following to the EECE Program
Handbook and syllabi:
The College of Education Conceptual Framework provides the organizing system for documenting
professional growth in the EECE program. The vision of the college is to prepare educators to contribute
to a just and democratic society. The college and the EECE program require teacher candidates to meet
the standards or core values of being knowledgeable, effective, and caring. The EECE program describes
the standards with these Hawaiian proverbs selected from ‘Olelo No‘eau (Pukui, 2001):
Knowledgeable
 Teacher candidates are knowledgeable about content, pedagogy, and professionalism; human growth
and development; and the physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of students with diverse
backgrounds and learning needs.
 E lawe i ke a‘o malama, a e ‘oi mau ka na‘auao: He who takes his teachings and applies them
increases his knowledge (‘Olelo No‘eau 328).
 ‘A‘ohe pau ka ‘ike i ka halau ho‘okahi: All knowledge is not taught in the same school. One can learn
from many sources (‘Olelo No‘eau 203).
Effective
22
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
 Teacher candidates have the professional experience and skills to teach so that all children can learn.
 Ho a‘e ka ‘ike he‘enalu i ka hokua o ka ‘ale: Show [your] knowledge of surfing on the back of the wave.
Talking about one’s knowledge and skill is not enough; let it be proven (‘Olelo No‘eau 1013).
Caring
Teacher candidates care about students and their families and communities, teaching and learning, and
their own professional development.
 E kuahui like i ka hana: Let everybody pitch in and work together (‘Olelo No‘eau 323).
The core values knowledgeable, effective, and caring are the basis for the EECE Professional
Dispositions and are specified in relation to the Hawai‘i Teacher Standards that teacher candidates must
meet for successful program completion.
5. Indication of whether the program has a unique set of program assessments, which are different from
those expected for the unit’s assessment system, and the relationship of the program’s assessments
to the unit’s assessment system.
The College (unit) assessment system is consistent with the conceptual framework and collects,
organizes, and analyzes data about applicant qualifications, candidate performance, and unit operations
in a consistent and systematic manner. Each preparation program has a comprehensive and integrated
assessment plan that comprises evaluative measures designed to inform decisions about program
change. The core of the unit’s assessment system is evaluation of candidate performance using multiple
assessments at key transition points. Teacher candidates develop course products and work samples,
which are submitted and reviewed at specified points.
The Elementary and Early Childhood Education Program assessment system includes both unit and
program specific assessments. The unit and program assess candidate performance at entrance,
midpoint/prior to student teaching, and exit. The following is a summary of the EECE assessment system.
Entry
 Application
 Interviews (Advising / EECE Faculty)
 Grades/GPA ≥2.75
 Praxis I scores
 Pre-education Core or AA degree
 Documented involvement with K-6 children
Midpoint (end of year 1)
 Grades/GPA ≥ 2.75
 Grades of C or better in all courses
 Courses completed (ITE 312, 317 Field Experience, and Methods)
 Acceptable/Target score on content-based assessment of methods course grades
 Acceptable/Target scores on lesson planning assessment across methods courses
 Acceptable/Target Dispositions score
 Acceptable/Target Field Experience Evaluation score
 Acceptable/Target Professional Portfolio developmental score
Exit (end of year 2)
 Grades/GPA > 2.75
 Grades of C or better in all courses
 Praxis II scores
 Courses completed (ITE 317 Field Experience, Methods, and Student Teaching ITE 390/391)
 Acceptable/Target score on content-based assessment of methods course grades
 Acceptable/Target scores on lesson planning assessment across methods courses
 Acceptable/Target Dispositions score
 Acceptable/Target Student Teaching Evaluation score
 Acceptable/Target Student Teaching Work Sample (analysis of K-6 student learning)
 Acceptable/Target Professional Portfolio final score
 Student Teaching Survey
23
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
 Institutional Recommendation
Post Graduate
 State License Exam (Praxis II), Employer Surveys, Graduate Surveys
Template 1a: Program of Study
Courses and Other Requirements
Elementary Education Emphasis (18 credits)
 EDEF 310 Education in American Society
 EDEP 311 Psychological Foundations
 etc.
Professional Education Core (51 credits)
 ITE 312 Introduction to Teaching, Elementary
 ITE 313 Literature & Literacy I
 etc
Credits
3
3
etc.
3
3
etc
Template 1b: Candidate and Completer Chart
Program Name
Academic Year
(Provide for last 3 years)
Number of candidates enrolled in
the program
Number of program completers
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
296
325
336
211
129
173
Template 2: Show Requirements at Transition Points (use specific, descriptive titles)
EECE
Entry
During Program
Completion
Follow-up
 Application
 Pre-education core
or AA/AAT
 Documented work
with K-6 children
 Praxis I (PPST
Reading, Writing,
Mathematics)
 Cumulative 2.75
GPA
 Small group
interview with
EECE faculty
 GPA > 2.75
 ITE 312 (Introduction to
Teaching, ITE 317 (field
experience), and methods
courses
 Lesson Planning Across
the K-6 Curriculum
 Resource Kit for Working
with Children with
Disabilities
 Planning and Designing
Instruction: A Technology
Integrated Learning Unit
 Score of acceptable or
target on dispositions
 GPA > 2.75
 ITE 390 (student
teaching) and ITE 391
(seminar)
 Analysis of K-6 Student
Learning
 Summary Reflection
Paper for Professional
Teaching Portfolio
 Final Assessment of
Student Teaching
 Score of acceptable or
target on dispositions
 Student teaching
completion survey
 State licensing
exam
 Follow-up survey
of graduates,
mentors, and
employers
24
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 3: Align Standards/Outcomes, Conceptual Framework, and Program of Study
ACEI
Standards
HTPS
CFW
&
KSD
ITE
312
Development,
learning, and
motivation
1, 2, 4
K

Curriculum
5
K, E





Instruction
3,6,7
K, E




Assessment
8
K, E




Professionalism
9, 10
C
ACEI
HTPS
KSD
CFW
ITE
313
&
314
ITE
317
ITE
322
&
323
ITE
324
&
325
ITE
326
&
329
ITE
343
ITE
390
ITE
391


















Association for Childhood Education International
(NCATE SPA Standards for Elementary Education)
Hawai‘i Teacher Performance Standards
Knowledge, skills, and dispositions
COE Conceptual Framework (knowledgeable,
effective, caring)
ITE 312
ITE 313
ITE 314
ITE 317
ITE 322
ITE 323
ITE 324
ITE 325
ITE 326
ITE 329
ITE 343
ITE 390
ITE 391
Introduction to Teaching, Elementary
Literature & Literacy I
Literature & Literacy II
Field Experience
Social Studies
Science
Mathematics I
Mathematics II
Visual Arts
Performing Arts Expression
Personal & Social K-6 Health Skills
Student Teaching
Seminar in Student Teaching
Template 4: List of 6-8 Key Program Assessments to demonstrate that students are
knowledgeable, effective, and caring
Assessment
Type of assessment
When administered
1. Licensure Assessment
State licensure exams
(Praxis II)
Semester 3 or 4
2. Methods Course Grades
Earned letter grades in
nine required methods
courses
3. Lesson Planning Across
the K-6 Curriculum
Lesson plans, teaching,
reflection
4. Final Evaluation of
Student Teaching
End of semester
assessment of Hawai‘i
Teaching Standards and
EECE Professional
Dispositions
Teacher work sample
Semesters 1, 2, 3:
ITE 313, 314, 322,
323, 324, 325, 326,
329, 343
Semesters 1, 2, 3:
ITE 314, 322, 323,
325, 326, 329, 343
Semester 4: Student
Teaching, ITE 390
5. Analysis of K-6 Student
Learning
6. Summary Reflection
Paper for Professional
Teaching Portfolio
7. Resource Kit for Working
with Children with
Disabilities
8. Planning and Designing
Instruction: A Technology
Integrated Learning Unit`
Written summary
reflection document
Resource kit for general
education teachers
Learning unit
25
Who assesses the work
Hawai‘i Teacher Standards
Board (licensure) and EECE
faculty (program
improvement)
Methods course instructors
Methods course instructors
Mentor teachers and
university field supervisors
Semester 4: Student
Teaching Seminar,
ITE 391
Semester 4: Student
Teaching Seminar,
ITE 391
Semester 2 or 3:
SPED 444
Cohort Coordinators
Semester 2 or 3:
ETEC 414, 442, 447,
448, or 480
ETEC course instructors
Cohort Coordinators
SPED course instructors
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 5: Relate Program Standards/Outcomes to the 6-8 Assessments in Template 4
ACEI Standards
1
1. Development, Learning, and Motivation

2
3
4
5
6
7
8






2. Curriculum Standards
2.1 English language arts






2.2 Science






2.3 Mathematics






2.4 Social studies






2.5 The arts





2.6 Health education





2.7 Physical education





2.8 Connections across curriculum





3. Instruction Standards
3.1 Integrating and applying knowledge for instruction







3.2 Adaptation to diverse students







3.3 Development of critical thinking, problem solving, performance skills






3.4 Active engagement in learning





3.5 Communication to foster collaboration






4. Assessment for Instruction





5. 1 Practices and behaviors of developing career teachers







5.2 Reflection and evaluation







5.3 Collaboration with families



5.4 Collaboration with colleagues and the community



26
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 6: Processes to ensure that program assessment procedures are fair, accurate,
consistent, and free of bias
What processes has the program used to ensure that assessment procedures are fair,
accurate, consistent, and free of bias? (What, when, how, and with what results?)
EECE faculty members want to give more attention to improving inter-rater reliability and
reducing subjectivity in assessment. This change will involve refining our assessments to
make them as clear as possible for instructors, mentors, and candidates while also providing
anchor papers and exemplars to illustrate candidate performance. The program formed a
committee to examine all assessment procedures from the perspective of fairness, accuracy,
consistency, and freedom from bias. The committee will work with faculty to make
modifications and improvements in the assessment system in the coming academic year.
At the end of Spring 2007, the Program Assessments and Evaluation committee deferred
reliability and validity studies of ACEI assessments because the rubrics used to assess the
student work samples were revised and would be significantly different from those that would
be used in 2008.
At the end of Spring 2008, faculty members collected and assessed, using common rubrics,
three student work samples representing evidence of the students’ knowledge, skills, and
dispositions (ACEI #3, #5, & #6 projects). The students’ pieces were uploaded and assessed
in the TK-20 data storage system.
Fall 2008: The Program Assessments and Evaluation committee will be examining the
reliability of raters’ estimates of our students’ performance on the ACEI #3, #5, & #6 projects.
We might look at the reliability as a type of cross-tab (chi-square) table. Ideally, we would like
raters to agree on every rating. An examination of the errors (i.e., the inconsistency in ratings)
would provide information about interrater reliability. We can determine how much of the error
is likely systematic (one rater rates everything easier or more difficult) or whether other rater
errors might be more likely to interact with the task, after controlling for chance agreement.
27
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 7. Format for Writing Performance Assessments (do for each assessment)
EECE Assessment 5: Analysis of K-6 Student Learning
1. Brief description of the assessment and its use in the program
During student teaching, candidates select a minimum of three samples of student work related to a
specific lesson or series of lessons to illustrate how students learned the content and skills addressed
in the lesson. The student work samples must show a range of responses (unacceptable, acceptable,
and target, as applicable). The narrative analysis should provide reflections on teacher strengths and
areas for improvement in planning, teaching, and assessment in relation to student work and plans
for next steps.
2. Description of how the assessment specifically aligns with specific standards
This assessment aligns with ACEI Standards 1, 2.1-2.4, 3.1-3.4, 4, and 5.1-5.2. Teacher candidates
are assessed on the assessment strategies they select in relation to the standards and benchmarks
they are teaching, their selection of student work to illustrate the range of student learning in the
classroom, their reflective analysis, and use of data to plan next steps. Candidates analyze K-6
student work to find evidence of student learning and to improve their own planning, assessment, and
teaching. The teacher work sample must contain the following elements:
 Description of the classroom, school, and community context [ACEI #1]
 Rationale (why the lessons were chosen, significance of the topic to students) [ACEI #1, 2.1-2.4,
3.1-3.4]
 Standards and benchmarks to be addressed in the lessons [ACEI #1, 2.1-2.4, 3.1-3.4]
 Assessment procedures (formative and summative) [ACEI #4]
 Instructional plans (teaching strategies that engage students) [ACEI #3.1-3.4]
 Student work display and interpretation [ACEI #4]
 Reflection and next steps [ACEI #4, 5.1-5.2]
3. Brief analysis of data findings
Rubric scores for this assessment indicate that analyzing K-6 student work and making decisions
based on that analysis is one of the most challenging areas for our teacher candidates. Almost all
candidates scored at the acceptable or target level, but scores were split more evenly across the two
levels than in other program assessments. Some candidates did not demonstrate acceptable scores
on this assessment, particularly in the area of using data for planning next steps. These findings are
consistent with the analysis of the data from Assessment 4. Student teachers were rated more often
as acceptable in this category than in other categories.
The EECE faculty members recognize that assessment is an area in which our candidates need more
in-depth preparation. We have begun planning to address that need specifically this year, as
discussed in Section V—Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program
Performance.
4. Interpretation of how data provide evidence for meeting standards
This assessment was a new one for our program in the 2005-06 academic year and one that requires
candidates to take their learning full circle. The data indicate that our teacher candidates are able to
draw conclusions about their effect on K-6 student learning based on their lesson design, teaching,
assessment, reflective analysis, and use of data. However, this assessment also provides evidence
that the EECE program must structure earlier and more frequent opportunities for candidates to
engage in designing assessments matched with content and learning goals, analyzing student work,
and, in particular, making instructional plans for individuals and the class as a whole based on their
analysis. We need to provide more guidance and practice in the varied uses of assessment related to
children’s learning and to candidates’ own professional growth. The data show that while most
students achieved acceptable or target ratings for Assessment 5, there is considerable room for
growth in this area as compared to any other assessment. Our candidates are at a beginning stage
as new educators in this aspect of teaching.
28
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 7. Format for Writing Performance Assessments (continued)
Attachment of Assessment Documentation
Title: Analysis of K-6 Student Learning
Type of assessment: Teacher work sample
When administered: Semester 4 (student teaching)
Description:
Teacher candidates select a minimum of three samples of student work related to a specific
lesson or series of lessons to illustrate how students learned the content and skills addressed in
the lesson. The student work samples should show a range of responses (unacceptable,
acceptable, and target, as applicable). The narrative analysis should provide reflections on
teacher strengths and areas for improvement in planning, teaching, and assessment in relation
to student work and plans for next steps.
Standards:
1. Development, learning, and motivation
2. Curriculum (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4)
3. Instruction (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
4. Assessment
5. Professionalism (5.1, 5.2)
Instructions to teacher candidates:
Teacher candidates prepare a teacher work sample to demonstrate their knowledge and
understanding of the student learning in their classrooms. Teacher candidates select a minimum
of three samples of student work related to a specific lesson or series of lessons to illustrate
how students learned the content and skills addressed in the lesson.
The teacher work sample should contain the following elements:
 Description of the classroom, school, and community context
 Rationale (why the lessons were chosen, significance of the topic to students)
 Standards and benchmarks to be addressed in the lesson(s)
 Assessment procedures (formative and summative)
 Instructional plans (teaching strategies that engage students)
 Student work display and interpretation
 Reflection and next steps
Teacher candidates are assessed on the assessment strategies they select in relation to the
standards and benchmarks they are teaching (25%), their selection of student work to illustrate
the range of student learning in the classroom (20%), their reflective analysis (30%), and use of
data to plan next steps (25%).
29
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 7a. Scoring Guide Format
Scoring Guide for Assessment 5
Component
Assessment
strategies
25%
ACEI 1, 2.12.4, 4
Selection of
student work
samples
20%
ACEI 4
Reflective
analysis
30%
ACEI 1, 4,
5.1-5.2
Use of data
25%
ACEI 1, 4,
5.1-5.2
Unacceptable
 Candidates do not
specify assessment
strategies or use
strategies not connected
to content or students.
 Candidates use
assessment as an
afterthought, rather than
as an integral part of
lesson planning.
Acceptable
 Candidates plan
assessment strategies
aligned with content,
learning opportunities,
and knowledge of
students.
 Candidates plan formal
and informal
assessment strategies
to gather information
about teaching and
learning.
Target
 Candidates plan authentic
assessment strategies
aligned with content,
learning opportunities, and
knowledge of students,
and to provide
opportunities for students’
self-assessment.
 Candidates plan specific
formal and informal
assessment strategies to
frame decisions about
teaching and learning.
Unacceptable 
Acceptable 
Target 
 Candidates do not select  Candidates select
 Candidates select student
student work or work
student work that
work that represents the
cannot be used to
represents the range of
range of performance in
assess learning (e.g.,
performance in the
the class, and makes
work does not match
class (unacceptable,
connections betweens
standards or assessment
acceptable, and target
students’ previous and
plans).
levels, as applicable).
current performance.
Unacceptable 
 Candidates do not
analyze student work or
reflection does not
provide direction for
teaching and learning.
Acceptable 
 Candidate analysis of
student work indicates
understanding of
student learning.
 Candidate reflection
indicates what teacher
should do next.
Target 
 Candidates compare and
contrast student learning
to plan upcoming
instruction.
 Candidate reflection
indicates strategies
targeted to assist
individual student
learning.
Unacceptable 
 Candidates do not use
data or use data only to
describe students.
Acceptable 
 Candidates use data to
plan for individual
learning and
development.
Target 
 Candidates use data to
modify instruction to
promote individual
learning and development.
 Candidates consult with
colleagues and specialists
as indicated.
Unacceptable 
Acceptable 
Target 
Overall Unacceptable 
Overall Acceptable 
Overall Target 
30
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 7b. Student Assessment Data Format (for each year—try to show 3 years)
Student Assessment Data for EECE Assessment 5
Spring 2006
New Assessment (one semester of data)
Manoa
Component
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Target
Total Passing
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
1
0.01%
64
50%
63
49.2%
127
99.2%
1
0.01%
62
48.4%
65
50.8%
127
99.2%
2
0.02%
64
50%
62
48.4%
126
98.4%
Use of data (25%)
12
0.09%
70
54.7%
46
35.9%
116
90.6%
Overall
2
0.02%
69
53.9%
57
44.5%
126
98.4%
Assessment
strategies (25%)
Selection of student
work samples (20%)
Reflective analysis
(30%)
American Samoa
Component
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Target
Total Passing
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
1
5.88%
10
58.82%
6
35.30%
16
94.12%
0
0%
10
58.82%
7
41.18%
17
100%
1
5.88%
12
70.59%
4
23.53%
16
94.12%
Use of data (25%)
2
11.76%
10
58.82%
5
29.42%
15
88.24%
Overall
1
5.88%
12
70.59%
4
23.53%
16
94.12%
Assessment
strategies (25%)
Selection of student
work samples (20%)
Reflective analysis
(30%)
31
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa College of Education [Dr. Beth Pateman]
8/11/08
Template 8: Use of assessment results to improve candidate and program performance
Example page from EECE SPA Report
III. Effects on Student Learning and on Creating Environments that Support Learning
Principal Findings and Interpretation
Results from assessments related to effects on student learning were the biggest eye-opener
for program faculty in this report. We learned that our candidates were stronger in planning and
implementing lessons than in aligning and using the results of assessment to improve K-6
student learning. Our candidates performed at acceptable and target levels, but we see
tremendous need for program growth and candidate development in these areas. As we have
reviewed our data, faculty members have commented that we must help candidates understand
and apply different kinds of assessment. Candidates are able to focus on what they did and how
they could have implemented their lessons better. They are less able to reflect on the quality of
work that children did and what that implies about students and, thus, their instruction. As one
faculty member said, we need to help our candidates come full circle—from learning where
children are before beginning lessons to understanding where both they and the children have
come in the process. We want our candidates to focus on multiple indicators of student learning,
including affective responses to implemented lessons.
Improving Candidate Performance
Candidates need earlier and more frequent opportunities in semesters 2 and 3 to engage in
designing assessments matched with content and learning goals, analyzing student work, and,
in particular, making instructional plans for individuals and the class as a whole based on their
analysis. We need to provide more guidance and practice in the varied uses of assessment and
reflection related to children’s learning and, in turn, to candidates’ growth.
Faculty members need to provide candidates with anchor papers and exemplars of quality
candidate work to assist them in preparing their own work for our assessment system. Our
faculty members need to plan the best ways of doing this so that we provide thoughtful
guidance rather than a directive, cookie-cutter approach to planning and assessment.
Improving the EECE Program
The EECE faculty members are in discussion about further improving the preparation of our
general elementary education candidates in working with children and families with special
needs. We partner closely with the Department of Special Education in our college to offer an
additional emphasis in Dual Preparation (preparation for a dual teaching license in Elementary
Education and Special Education) for candidates who select this option. However, we believe
that all candidates would benefit from additional preparation. The courses we are considering
for all candidates include SPED 425 Partnerships with Families and Professionals and SPED
461 Assessment, Planning, and Instruction for Students with Mild/Moderate Disabilities.
The EECE faculty members also need to refine the performance indicators that form the
rubrics for our assessment system. The past year was a time of bringing our assessment
system to life after several years of planning, revision, and refinement. Now that the system is in
motion, we must ensure that we provide increasingly clear definitions and understandable
expectations for candidates in their coursework and field experiences. We also must ensure that
all stakeholders—candidates, mentors, administrators, faculty, and field supervisors—are
engaged in the refinement process.
32